Zevachim 66
Share this shiur:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in memory of Irving “Poppy” Mauskopf, Yechezkel ben Rachel and Avraham. “A man that exemplified complete emuna. He greeted everyone with a smile. We were all very privileged to have him in our lives. May his neshama have an aliya.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in memory of Irving “Poppy” Mauskopf, Yechezkel ben Rachel and Avraham. “A man that exemplified complete emuna. He greeted everyone with a smile. We were all very privileged to have him in our lives. May his neshama have an aliya.”
Zevachim 66
אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַבְדִּיל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, גַּבֵּי בוֹר דִּכְתִיב ״וְלֹא יְכַסֶּנּוּ״ – הָכִי נָמֵי דְּאֵין צָרִיךְ לְכַסּוֹת?!
It means that the priest does not have to separate it, but not that it is prohibited to do so. Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If that is so, then with regard to a pit in the public domain, where it is written: “And if a man shall open a pit…and does not cover it” (Exodus 21:33), can one claim that this verse also means that he does not have to cover it?
הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם, כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב ״בַּעַל הַבּוֹר יְשַׁלֵּם״ – עִלָּוֵיהּ הוּא דִּרְמֵי לְכַסּוֹיֵי. אֲבָל הָכָא, מִכְּדֵי כְּתִיב ״וְהִקְרִיבוֹ״ – חָלַק הַכָּתוּב בֵּין חַטַּאת הָעוֹף לְעוֹלַת הָעוֹף;
The Gemara responds: How can these cases be compared? There, with regard to a pit, since it is written in the following verse: “The owner of the pit shall pay” (Exodus 21:34), it is evident that it is incumbent upon him to cover the pit. But here, since it is written with regard to a bird burnt offering: “And the priest shall bring it to the altar” (Leviticus 1:15), the term “it” indicates that the verse is referring only to a burnt offering, and the verse has thereby differentiated between a bird sin offering and a bird burnt offering.
״לֹא יַבְדִּיל״ לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַבְדִּיל.
Consequently, it is obvious that whereas the priest must completely separate the head of a bird burnt offering, this is not the halakha with regard to a sin offering. Why do I need the verse to state with regard to a bird sin offering: “But shall not separate it” (Leviticus 5:8)? Conclude from this verse that it is not forbidden to separate the head of a bird sin offering from the body, but rather one does not have to separate it.
מִיצָּה דַּם הַגּוּף. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״עוֹלָה״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּיצָּה דַּם הַגּוּף וְלֹא מִיצָּה דַּם הָרֹאשׁ. יָכוֹל מִיצָּה דַּם הָרֹאשׁ וְלֹא מִיצָּה דַּם הַגּוּף? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הוּא״.
§ The mishna teaches that if the priest squeezed out the blood of the head and did not squeeze out the blood of the body, it is disqualified. If he squeezed out the blood of the body and did not squeeze out the blood of the head, the offering is valid. The Sages taught in a baraita: In reference to a bird burnt offering, the verse states, seemingly unnecessarily: “It is a burnt offering” (Leviticus 1:17). This teaches that even though the priest squeezed out the blood of the body and did not squeeze out the blood of the head, it is valid. One might have thought that if the priest squeezed out the blood of the head and did not squeeze out the blood of the body the offering is still valid. Therefore, the verse states: “It is.”
מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא? אָמַר רָבִינָא: מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּרוֹב דָּמִים בַּגּוּף שְׁכִיחִי.
The Gemara asks: What is the biblical derivation for the opinion that the offering is valid if the priest squeezed out only the blood of the body but not if he squeezed out only the blood of the head? Ravina said: There is no conclusive proof from the language of the verse itself, but it stands to reason that this is the case, as most of the blood is found in the body, not the head.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים
מַתְנִי’ חַטַּאת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת, לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת — כְּשֵׁירָה.
MISHNA: If the priest sacrificed a bird sin offering in its designated place below the red line, and he sacrificed it according to the procedure of a sin offering with pinching, i.e., cutting from the nape with a fingernail, and sprinkling, and he sacrificed it for the sake of a sin offering, the offering is fit. This is the manner in which a priest is to sacrifice a sin offering ab initio.
כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה – פְּסוּלָה. עֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַעְלָה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה כּוּלָּן – פְּסוּלָה.
If the priest sacrificed the bird sin offering below the red line in the middle of the altar and according to the procedure of a sin offering, but he sacrificed it for the sake of a burnt offering; or if he sacrificed it according to the procedure of a burnt offering, even if he sacrificed it for the sake of a sin offering; or if he sacrificed it according to the procedure of a burnt offering for the sake of a burnt offering; in all these cases the sin offering is disqualified. If one sacrificed a bird sin offering above the red line according to the procedure of any of the offerings, it is disqualified, because he did not sacrifice it in its designated place.
עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַעְלָה; כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה – כְּשֵׁירָה. כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת – כְּשֵׁירָה, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא עָלְתָה לִבְעָלֶיהָ.
A bird burnt offering that one sacrificed in its designated place above the red line according to the procedure of a burnt offering and for the sake of a burnt offering is fit. This is the manner in which a priest is to sacrifice a burnt offering ab initio. If he sacrificed a bird burnt offering above the red line according to the procedure of the burnt offering but for the sake of a sin offering, the offering is fit, but it did not satisfy the obligation of its owner.
כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת – פְּסוּלָה. עֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה; כְּמַעֲשֵׂה כּוּלָּן – פְּסוּלָה.
If the priest sacrificed a bird burnt offering according to the procedure of a sin offering for the sake of a burnt offering, or according to the procedure of a sin offering for the sake of a sin offering, the offering is disqualified. If he sacrificed it below the red line according to the procedure of any of the offerings, it is disqualified, because he did not sacrifice it in its designated place.
גְּמָ׳ דְּשַׁנִּי בְּמַאי? אִילֵימָא דְּשַׁנִּי בִּמְלִיקָה – נֵימָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁמַּבְדִּילִין בְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף?
GEMARA: According to the mishna, a bird sin offering that one sacrificed according to the procedure of a burnt offering is disqualified. The Gemara asks: With regard to what rite did the priest change the procedure? If we say that he changed the pinching by severing the head completely, as is proper for a burnt offering, shall we say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who says: I heard that the priests would sever the head completely even in the sacrifice of a bird sin offering?
וְלָא אוֹקֵימְנָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן?!
The Gemara responds: And what is wrong with this conclusion? Have we not already explained that the mishna in the previous chapter (65a), with regard to pinching, is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon?
לָא; דְּשַׁנִּי בְּהַזָּאָה.
The Gemara offers another explanation: No, the mishna is referring to a case where the priest changed the procedure in the rite of sprinkling by squeezing out all the blood at once, as one would do with a burnt offering, rather than first sprinkling the blood on the altar as is proper for a sin offering. Under such circumstances, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, would also agree that the offering is disqualified.
הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא – מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: עֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַעְלָה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה כּוּלָּן – פְּסוּלָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת. דְּשַׁנִּי בְּמַאי? אִילֵימָא דְּשַׁנִּי בִּמְלִיקָה, הָאָמַר מָר: מְלִיקָה בְּכׇל מָקוֹם בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ – כְּשֵׁירָה! אֶלָּא לָאו דְּשַׁנִּי בְּהַזָּאָה? וּמִדְּסֵיפָא בְּהַזָּאָה, רֵישָׁא נָמֵי בְּהַזָּאָה.
This, too, stands to reason that the mishna is referring to a change in the sprinkling. This can be inferred from the fact that the mishna teaches in the latter clause: If one sacrificed a bird sin offering above the red line according to the procedure of any of the offerings, it is disqualified, and this applies even if he sacrificed it according to the procedure of a sin offering and for the sake of a sin offering. With regard to what rite did the priest change the location of the procedure? If we say that he changed the pinching, performing it above the red line, didn’t the Master already say with regard to a bird sin offering that pinching is valid anywhere on the altar? Rather, is it not that he changed the location of the sprinkling? And since the ruling of the latter clause is stated with regard to sprinkling, by inference, the ruling of the first clause is also stated with regard to sprinkling.
מִידֵּי אִירְיָא?! הָא כִּדְאִיתָא, וְהָא כִּדְאִיתָא!
The Gemara responds to this proof: Are the cases comparable? This case is as it is, and that case is as it is. Even if the ruling of the latter clause is stated with regard to a change in the location of the sprinkling, the ruling of the first clause may still be stated with regard to a change in the procedure of the pinching, in which case the mishna would not be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.
עוֹלַת הָעוֹף כּוּ׳. דְּשַׁנִּי בְּמַאי?
§ According to the mishna, a bird burnt offering that one sacrificed according to the procedure of a sin offering is disqualified. The Gemara asks: With regard to what rite did the priest change the procedure?
אִילֵּימָא דְּשַׁנִּי בִּמְלִיקָה; מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: כּוּלָּן אֵין מְטַמְּאִין בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה, וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן – נֵימָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ? דְּאִי כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, הָאָמַר: אֵין מוֹעֲלִין!
If we say that he changed the pinching of the bird’s nape by leaving the head partially attached, as is proper for a sin offering, then from the fact that the latter clause, i.e., the first clause of the next mishna (66b), teaches: All of the offerings enumerated above do not render one who swallows their meat ritually impure when it is in the throat, and one who benefits from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property, by inference, we must say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. As, if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, doesn’t he say later on in that mishna concerning a burnt offering whose nape was pinched according to the procedure of a sin offering: One who derives benefit from it is not liable for misusing consecrated property?
וְאֶלָּא בְּמִיצּוּי?
Rather, the mishna must be referring to a change in the procedure of squeezing out the blood. Instead of squeezing out the blood, the priest sprinkled it on the wall of the altar as if it were a sin offering. In this case, even Rabbi Yehoshua would concede that one is liable for misusing it.
אֵימָא סֵיפָא: עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ. דְּשַׁנִּי בְּמַאי?
But say the last clause of the subsequent mishna: In the case of a bird burnt offering that one sacrificed below the red line according to the procedure of a sin offering, and for the sake of a sin offering, Rabbi Eliezer says: One who benefits from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property, as it remains a burnt offering. Rabbi Yehoshua says: One who benefits from it is not liable for misuse of consecrated property, as the bird assumes the status of a sin offering. Here, with regard to what rite did the priest change the procedure and perform it as if it were a sin offering?
אִילֵּימָא בְּמִיצּוּי, אֵימַר דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ – דְּשַׁנִּי בִּמְלִיקָה; בְּמִיצּוּי מִי אָמַר?!
If we say that he changed the squeezing, this poses a difficulty, as it is reasonable to say that Rabbi Yehoshua says that one is not liable for misuse specifically when the priest changed the pinching, as pinching a burnt offering for a bird as though it were a sin offering changes its status; but does he say this in a case where it was pinched properly, and the priest changed the squeezing procedure alone? It is unreasonable to suggest that the offering changes its status at this later stage.
וְאֶלָּא בִּמְלִיקָה? רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא בִּמְלִיקָה, וּמְצִיעֲתָא בְּמִיצּוּי?!
Rather, this final clause must be referring to a change with regard to the pinching. But can it be that the first clause concerning a sin offering sacrificed as a burnt offering and the last clause concerning the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua are both referring to a change with regard to the pinching, but the middle clause concerning a burnt offering sacrificed as a sin offering is referring to a change with regard to the squeezing?
אִין; רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא בִּמְלִיקָה, וּמְצִיעֲתָא בְּמִיצּוּי.
The Gemara answers: Indeed, the first clause and the last clause are referring to a change with regard to the pinching, and the middle clause is referring to a change with regard to the squeezing.
מַתְנִי׳ וְכוּלָּן אֵין מְטַמְּאִין בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה, וּמוֹעֲלִים בָּהֶן; חוּץ מֵחַטַּאת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת.
MISHNA: And all of the offerings enumerated in the previous mishna, even those that are disqualified and may not be eaten or sacrificed, still differ from carcasses of unslaughtered kosher birds in that they do not render one who swallows their meat ritually impure when the meat is in the throat. This is because the pinching of the napes of bird offerings, like the slaughter of animals, prevents them from assuming the status of a carcass. But nevertheless, since they are forbidden to the priests, one who derives benefit from any of them is liable for misusing consecrated property. This is the halakha in all cases except for the bird sin offering that one sacrificed below the red line according to the procedure of the sin offering and for the sake of a sin offering. Since it was sacrificed properly and it is permitted for priests to partake of a fit sin offering, there is no liability for misuse of consecrated property.
עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: מוֹעֲלִים בָּהּ, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אֵין מוֹעֲלִים בָּהּ.
In the case of a bird burnt offering that one improperly sacrificed below the red line according to the procedure of the sin offering, and one did so for the sake of a sin offering, Rabbi Eliezer says: One who derives benefit from it is liable for misusing consecrated property, as it remains a burnt offering, whose meat is never permitted to the priests. Rabbi Yehoshua says: One who derives benefit from it is not liable for misusing consecrated property. Since the entire sacrificial process was conducted according to the procedure of a sin offering, the offering assumes the status of a sin offering in this regard.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: וּמָה אִם חַטָּאת, שֶׁאֵין מוֹעֲלִים בָּהּ לִשְׁמָהּ – כְּשֶׁשִּׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ מוֹעֲלִים בָּהּ; עוֹלָה, שֶׁמּוֹעֲלִים בָּהּ לִשְׁמָהּ – כְּשֶׁשִּׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיִּמְעֲלוּ בָּהּ?!
The mishna recounts the dispute between the tanna’im. Rabbi Eliezer said: And if in the case of a sin offering that was sacrificed for its sake, one is not liable for misusing it, and nevertheless, when one changed its designation and sacrificed it not for its sake, one is liable for misusing it, then in the case of a burnt offering, where one is liable for misusing it even when it was sacrificed for its sake, when one changed its designation and sacrificed it not for its sake is it not right that he is liable for misusing it?
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: לֹא; אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּחַטָּאת שֶׁשִּׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה – שֶׁכֵּן שִׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ לְדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מְעִילָה; תֹּאמַר בְּעוֹלָה שֶׁשִּׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת – שֶׁכֵּן שִׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ לְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מְעִילָה?!
Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, that a fortiori inference is not correct, as if you said with regard to a sin offering for which one changed its designation and sacrificed it for the sake of a burnt offering that there is liability for misuse, this is reasonable, because he changed its designation to an item for which there is liability for misuse. Would you say in the case of a burnt offering for which one changed its designation and sacrificed it for the sake of a sin offering that there is liability for misuse, as in that case he changed its designation to an item for which there is no liability for its misuse?
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Zevahim 66: Procedure, Intent, and Consecration – for Bird Offerings
Spiritual Aspects of Korbanot: The Permission To Eat Meat
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Philadelphia, United States
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
Raanana, Israel
Minnesota, United States
New York, United States
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Los Angeles, United States
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
Tel Aviv, Israel
Phoenix, AZ, United States
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Teaneck, United States
Bronx, United States
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
Zevachim 66
ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ¦ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ° ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ. ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ: ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ·ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΆΦΌΧ ΦΌΧΦΌΧ΄ β ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ¦ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ° ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ?!
It means that the priest does not have to separate it, but not that it is prohibited to do so. Rav AαΈ₯a, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If that is so, then with regard to a pit in the public domain, where it is written: βAnd if a man shall open a pitβ¦and does not cover itβ (Exodus 21:33), can one claim that this verse also means that he does not have to cover it?
ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ?! ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ΄ β Χ’Φ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ. ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΉΧ΄ β ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ§ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧͺΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£;
The Gemara responds: How can these cases be compared? There, with regard to a pit, since it is written in the following verse: βThe owner of the pit shall payβ (Exodus 21:34), it is evident that it is incumbent upon him to cover the pit. But here, since it is written with regard to a bird burnt offering: βAnd the priest shall bring it to the altarβ (Leviticus 1:15), the term βitβ indicates that the verse is referring only to a burnt offering, and the verse has thereby differentiated between a bird sin offering and a bird burnt offering.
Χ΄ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΧ΄ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ? Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·ΦΌΧΦΌ: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ¦ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ° ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ.
Consequently, it is obvious that whereas the priest must completely separate the head of a bird burnt offering, this is not the halakha with regard to a sin offering. Why do I need the verse to state with regard to a bird sin offering: βBut shall not separate itβ (Leviticus 5:8)? Conclude from this verse that it is not forbidden to separate the head of a bird sin offering from the body, but rather one does not have to separate it.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ£. ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ: Χ΄Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ¦ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ£ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΉΧΧ©Χ. ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΉΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ£? ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΧ΄.
Β§ The mishna teaches that if the priest squeezed out the blood of the head and did not squeeze out the blood of the body, it is disqualified. If he squeezed out the blood of the body and did not squeeze out the blood of the head, the offering is valid. The Sages taught in a baraita: In reference to a bird burnt offering, the verse states, seemingly unnecessarily: βIt is a burnt offeringβ (Leviticus 1:17). This teaches that even though the priest squeezed out the blood of the body and did not squeeze out the blood of the head, it is valid. One might have thought that if the priest squeezed out the blood of the head and did not squeeze out the blood of the body the offering is still valid. Therefore, the verse states: βIt is.β
ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ£ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ.
The Gemara asks: What is the biblical derivation for the opinion that the offering is valid if the priest squeezed out only the blood of the body but not if he squeezed out only the blood of the head? Ravina said: There is no conclusive proof from the language of the verse itself, but it stands to reason that this is the case, as most of the blood is found in the body, not the head.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧΦ° Χ§ΧΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄Χ’ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ, ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ.
MISHNA: If the priest sacrificed a bird sin offering in its designated place below the red line, and he sacrificed it according to the procedure of a sin offering with pinching, i.e., cutting from the nape with a fingernail, and sprinkling, and he sacrificed it for the sake of a sin offering, the offering is fit. This is the manner in which a priest is to sacrifice a sin offering ab initio.
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ β Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ. Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ β Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ.
If the priest sacrificed the bird sin offering below the red line in the middle of the altar and according to the procedure of a sin offering, but he sacrificed it for the sake of a burnt offering; or if he sacrificed it according to the procedure of a burnt offering, even if he sacrificed it for the sake of a sin offering; or if he sacrificed it according to the procedure of a burnt offering for the sake of a burnt offering; in all these cases the sin offering is disqualified. If one sacrificed a bird sin offering above the red line according to the procedure of any of the offerings, it is disqualified, because he did not sacrifice it in its designated place.
Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ; ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ.
A bird burnt offering that one sacrificed in its designated place above the red line according to the procedure of a burnt offering and for the sake of a burnt offering is fit. This is the manner in which a priest is to sacrifice a burnt offering ab initio. If he sacrificed a bird burnt offering above the red line according to the procedure of the burnt offering but for the sake of a sin offering, the offering is fit, but it did not satisfy the obligation of its owner.
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ β Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ. Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ; ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ β Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ.
If the priest sacrificed a bird burnt offering according to the procedure of a sin offering for the sake of a burnt offering, or according to the procedure of a sin offering for the sake of a sin offering, the offering is disqualified. If he sacrificed it below the red line according to the procedure of any of the offerings, it is disqualified, because he did not sacrifice it in its designated place.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ·ΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ? ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ·ΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ β Χ Φ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£?
GEMARA: According to the mishna, a bird sin offering that one sacrificed according to the procedure of a burnt offering is disqualified. The Gemara asks: With regard to what rite did the priest change the procedure? If we say that he changed the pinching by severing the head completely, as is proper for a burnt offering, shall we say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who says: I heard that the priests would sever the head completely even in the sacrifice of a bird sin offering?
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ§Φ΅ΧΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ?!
The Gemara responds: And what is wrong with this conclusion? Have we not already explained that the mishna in the previous chapter (65a), with regard to pinching, is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon?
ΧΦΈΧ; ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ·ΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ.
The Gemara offers another explanation: No, the mishna is referring to a case where the priest changed the procedure in the rite of sprinkling by squeezing out all the blood at once, as one would do with a burnt offering, rather than first sprinkling the blood on the altar as is proper for a sin offering. Under such circumstances, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, would also agree that the offering is disqualified.
ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ Χ‘Φ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ: Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ β Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ. ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ·ΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ? ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ·ΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧ¨: ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ· β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ! ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ·ΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ, Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©ΦΈΧΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ.
This, too, stands to reason that the mishna is referring to a change in the sprinkling. This can be inferred from the fact that the mishna teaches in the latter clause: If one sacrificed a bird sin offering above the red line according to the procedure of any of the offerings, it is disqualified, and this applies even if he sacrificed it according to the procedure of a sin offering and for the sake of a sin offering. With regard to what rite did the priest change the location of the procedure? If we say that he changed the pinching, performing it above the red line, didnβt the Master already say with regard to a bird sin offering that pinching is valid anywhere on the altar? Rather, is it not that he changed the location of the sprinkling? And since the ruling of the latter clause is stated with regard to sprinkling, by inference, the ruling of the first clause is also stated with regard to sprinkling.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ?! ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΈΧ!
The Gemara responds to this proof: Are the cases comparable? This case is as it is, and that case is as it is. Even if the ruling of the latter clause is stated with regard to a change in the location of the sprinkling, the ruling of the first clause may still be stated with regard to a change in the procedure of the pinching, in which case the mishna would not be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.
Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ³. ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ·ΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ?
Β§ According to the mishna, a bird burnt offering that one sacrificed according to the procedure of a sin offering is disqualified. The Gemara asks: With regard to what rite did the priest change the procedure?
ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ·ΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ; ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ Χ‘Φ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΆΧ β Χ Φ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ»ΧΧ’Φ·? ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ»ΧΧ’Φ·, ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ!
If we say that he changed the pinching of the birdβs nape by leaving the head partially attached, as is proper for a sin offering, then from the fact that the latter clause, i.e., the first clause of the next mishna (66b), teaches: All of the offerings enumerated above do not render one who swallows their meat ritually impure when it is in the throat, and one who benefits from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property, by inference, we must say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. As, if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, doesnβt he say later on in that mishna concerning a burnt offering whose nape was pinched according to the procedure of a sin offering: One who derives benefit from it is not liable for misusing consecrated property?
ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦ΦΌΧΦΌΧ?
Rather, the mishna must be referring to a change in the procedure of squeezing out the blood. Instead of squeezing out the blood, the priest sprinkled it on the wall of the altar as if it were a sin offering. In this case, even Rabbi Yehoshua would concede that one is liable for misusing it.
ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ‘Φ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ: Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ β Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ»ΧΧ’Φ· ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ. ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ·ΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ?
But say the last clause of the subsequent mishna: In the case of a bird burnt offering that one sacrificed below the red line according to the procedure of a sin offering, and for the sake of a sin offering, Rabbi Eliezer says: One who benefits from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property, as it remains a burnt offering. Rabbi Yehoshua says: One who benefits from it is not liable for misuse of consecrated property, as the bird assumes the status of a sin offering. Here, with regard to what rite did the priest change the procedure and perform it as if it were a sin offering?
ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦ΦΌΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ»ΧΧ’Φ· β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ·ΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ; ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦ΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨?!
If we say that he changed the squeezing, this poses a difficulty, as it is reasonable to say that Rabbi Yehoshua says that one is not liable for misuse specifically when the priest changed the pinching, as pinching a burnt offering for a bird as though it were a sin offering changes its status; but does he say this in a case where it was pinched properly, and the priest changed the squeezing procedure alone? It is unreasonable to suggest that the offering changes its status at this later stage.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ? Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ‘Φ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ¦Φ΄ΧΧ’Φ²ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦ΦΌΧΦΌΧ?!
Rather, this final clause must be referring to a change with regard to the pinching. But can it be that the first clause concerning a sin offering sacrificed as a burnt offering and the last clause concerning the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua are both referring to a change with regard to the pinching, but the middle clause concerning a burnt offering sacrificed as a sin offering is referring to a change with regard to the squeezing?
ΧΦ΄ΧΧ; Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ‘Φ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ¦Φ΄ΧΧ’Φ²ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦ΦΌΧΦΌΧ.
The Gemara answers: Indeed, the first clause and the last clause are referring to a change with regard to the pinching, and the middle clause is referring to a change with regard to the squeezing.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΆΧ; ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ.
MISHNA: And all of the offerings enumerated in the previous mishna, even those that are disqualified and may not be eaten or sacrificed, still differ from carcasses of unslaughtered kosher birds in that they do not render one who swallows their meat ritually impure when the meat is in the throat. This is because the pinching of the napes of bird offerings, like the slaughter of animals, prevents them from assuming the status of a carcass. But nevertheless, since they are forbidden to the priests, one who derives benefit from any of them is liable for misusing consecrated property. This is the halakha in all cases except for the bird sin offering that one sacrificed below the red line according to the procedure of the sin offering and for the sake of a sin offering. Since it was sacrificed properly and it is permitted for priests to partake of a fit sin offering, there is no liability for misuse of consecrated property.
Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ β Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ»ΧΧ’Φ· ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ.
In the case of a bird burnt offering that one improperly sacrificed below the red line according to the procedure of the sin offering, and one did so for the sake of a sin offering, Rabbi Eliezer says: One who derives benefit from it is liable for misusing consecrated property, as it remains a burnt offering, whose meat is never permitted to the priests. Rabbi Yehoshua says: One who derives benefit from it is not liable for misusing consecrated property. Since the entire sacrificial process was conducted according to the procedure of a sin offering, the offering assumes the status of a sin offering in this regard.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨: ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦΌ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©ΦΆΧΧ©Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ; Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦΌ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©ΦΆΧΧ©Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ?!
The mishna recounts the dispute between the tannaβim. Rabbi Eliezer said: And if in the case of a sin offering that was sacrificed for its sake, one is not liable for misusing it, and nevertheless, when one changed its designation and sacrificed it not for its sake, one is liable for misusing it, then in the case of a burnt offering, where one is liable for misusing it even when it was sacrificed for its sake, when one changed its designation and sacrificed it not for its sake is it not right that he is liable for misusing it?
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ»ΧΧ’Φ·: ΧΦΉΧ; ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ©Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ β Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ©Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ; ΧͺΦΉΦΌΧΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ©Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ β Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ?!
Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, that a fortiori inference is not correct, as if you said with regard to a sin offering for which one changed its designation and sacrificed it for the sake of a burnt offering that there is liability for misuse, this is reasonable, because he changed its designation to an item for which there is liability for misuse. Would you say in the case of a burnt offering for which one changed its designation and sacrificed it for the sake of a sin offering that there is liability for misuse, as in that case he changed its designation to an item for which there is no liability for its misuse?
